Appeal No. 2002-0472
Application No. 09/109,407
Furthermore, even if so combined, the references would not
account for all of the limitations in claims 1 and 17. The
examiner’s apparent finding that Risser’s drum 6 and its helical
edges 17 meet the limitations in claim 1 relating to the rotary
impeller and its blades is without merit. In short, the helical
edges 17 do not constitute blades having front end portions
dimensioned so as to pass over a gate port as required by the
claim. The proposed combination also lacks response to the chip
part limitations in independent claim 17. The examiner’s
position that these limitations are immaterial because the
structures and functions are equivalent has no basis in law.
Thus, the combined teachings of Risser and Cameron do not
justify a conclusion that the differences between the subject
matter recited in independent claims 1 and 17 and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 1 and 17, and
dependent claims 2 through 4, 9 and 14 through 16 and 18 through
24, as being unpatentable over Risser in view of Cameron
Since Bryan’s disclosure of a railroad spike orienting and
positioning system does not cure the foregoing flaws in the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007